Just asking of London, UK wrote:
The article and arguments sound plausible enough to me. My only question would be why the insurance company did not do all they could to prove this was not a terrorist attack in order to not pay out the billions they were due to pay.

As I understand insurance companies, they'll do anything to avoid paying, so i assume they would do a hell of a lot to avoid paying out 7 billion. Unless the assurance assessor was also a Bush? Also, doesn't the insurance company have shareholders? Why don't the shareholders demand a comprehensive investigation in order to get to the bottom of this - it's them that's paying out isn't it?